• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
THOMAS P. O’BRIENUnited States AttorneyCHRISTINE C. EWELLAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionSTEVEN R. WELK California Bar No. 149883Assistant United States AttorneyChief, Asset Forfeiture SectionFRANK D. KORTUMCalifornia Bar No. 110984Assistant United States AttorneyAsset Forfeiture SectionFederal Courthouse, 14 Floor 
th
312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-6166/5710Facsimile: (213) 894-7177E-mail: Steven.Welk@usdoj.govFrank.Kortum@usdoj.govAttorneys for DefendantsU
 NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
F
OR 
T
HE
C
ENTRAL
D
ISTRICT
O
F
C
ALIFORNIA
W
ESTERN
D
IVISION
RAMON RIVERA,))Plaintiff,))v.))RONNIE A. CARTER, ETC., )ET AL. ))Defendants. )))))))  NO. CV 09-2435 FMC (VBKx)
GOVERNMENT’SSUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION[DECLARATIONS OF STEVENR. WELK, DARRINKOZLOWSKI AND CHIEF OFPOLICE DANIEL A. WEASTFILED CONCURRENTLYHEREWITH]
[No hearing] 
Case 2:09-cv-02435-FMC-VBK Document 32 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................iiI.INTRODUCTION..............................................1II.MATERIAL FACTS............................................3III.ARGUMENT.................................................6A. The Restraint of the Trademarks Is Authorized By § 1963(d).......6B. § 1963(d) Permits the Restraint of Whatever Rights and Interests theOwner of the Restrained Property Enjoys......................91. The rights of the holder of the Mongols Registered Marks arewithin the scope of § 1963(d)’s authority.................92.The Registered Marks are, and have always been treated as,collective membership marks, not service marks..........11C. Plaintiff Has No Enforceable Individual Rights with Respect to theRegistered Marks........................................211. Plaintiff has no Constitutional right to possess propertysubject to a revoked limited license.....................212. The Amended Order is narrowly tailored to avoid FirstAmendment concerns ...............................23D. Plaintiff’s Lack of a Justiciable Claim Triggers the Statutory Bar onIntervention.............................................23i
Case 2:09-cv-02435-FMC-VBK Document 32 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 2 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESFEDERAL CASES PAGE
Alexander v. United States,509 U.S. 544 (1993)..........................................................................................7Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery,Inc.,192 U.S.P.Q. 170 (TTAB 1976).....................................................................12American Speech-Language-Hearing Association v. National Hearing Aid Society,224 U.S.P.Q. 798 (TTAB 1984).....................................................................13Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber,29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998)............................................................13Best Western International v. Patel,523 F. Supp. 2d 979 (D. Ar. 2007).................................................................20Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. V. Kremer,403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)..........................................................................13Brittingham v. Jenkins,914 F.2d 447 (4th Cir. 1990)............................................................................9Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Scoops Galore, LLC,2006 WL 494808 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2006)...................................................20Eberhart v. Massell,311 F. Supp. 654 (D. Ga. 1970)......................................................................24Healy v. James,408 U.S. 169 (1972)........................................................................................22L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc.,811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987).............................................................................13Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.,296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)..........................................................................13Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.,537 U.S. 418 (2003)........................................................................................13 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,458 U.S. 886 (1982)........................................................................................22 NEC Electric v. CAL Cir. Abco,810 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. 1987)........................................................................13PGA v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.,514 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1975)..........................................................................20
Case 2:09-cv-02435-FMC-VBK Document 32 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 3 of 30
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...